Statement by the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, Ambassador Sérgio França Danese, on behalf of the G4, at the Informal meeting of the GA plenary on the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council - June 20th, 2024

Dear Co-Chairs, I take the floor on behalf of the G4 – Germany, India, Japan, and my own country, Brazil.

The Pact for the Future represents a unique opportunity for us to reinvigorate multilateralism and set it on the right course. Failing to seize this opportunity will lead to considerable frustration with and further deterioration of the already dire landscape of global governance.

We appreciate your dedicated efforts in drafting and revising the IGN’s contribution to the Pact for the Future. We know how politically challenging your job is.

The latest revision of the text, unfortunately, has significantly watered down the text. The limited ambition the previous text had to help us move negotiations forward is further diminished, despite the call from the overwhelming majority of this organization for a transformative reform of the Council.

This was done to accommodate the interests of those who have been stalling this process in every possible way for decades. It amounts to submitting the imperative for change, the future of global governance, to the narrow interests of a few.

On Action 1, the deletion of the explicit recognition that the reform would include, but would not be limited to, the expansion of non-permanent seats with a two-year term is simply erasing a factual, accurate description of the negotiations. All the models presented and discussed had this feature. The current formulation fails to accurately reflect the substance of our discussions.

Much worse, some might use such wording to argue erroneously that expansion in the 2-year category only would be a standing parameter for reform. This is obviously inaccurate and unfair; therefore, I regret to say, entirely unacceptable. The text should be clarified in this respect. We firmly reiterate the request for the text to clearly refer to the fact that the expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories enjoys the support of the majority of the membership.

Moreover, while we appreciate the reference to the urgent need for reform in the title of the action, we still fail to identify a clearly defined timeframe in the text that will foster meaningful action. SDG 16.8 should be mentioned because it would not only indicate the targeted timeframe but also clarify the necessity of broadening and strengthening the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance, which is critically important when it comes to Security Council reform.

On item 1b, we believe that the majority of the membership is not currently in a position to express a favorable stance towards any cross-regional group other than the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

Regarding Action 2, the change in the title from “accelerating” to “strengthening” regrettably diminishes the urgency and time-sensitive nature of the reform process, which is crucial if the IGN is to be taken seriously by the world.

Secondly, considering the productive dialogue that took place during this IGN session on various models, we endorse the proposal for the Co-Chairs to develop a unified model on the basis of the proposals presented by Member States. It is important to note that the presentation of a model by the Co-Chairs does not preclude any Member State from introducing new models or refining previously presented models. A consolidated model is an additional element that could help guide the process forward and facilitate further progress.

Deferring the development of the consolidated model into the indefinite future, as the current text proposes, does little to help us give purpose and direction to the IGN. We should therefore include in the text a call for direct action by the Co-Chairs on this, as was done in Rev. 2, rather than simply encouraging submission by some. Again, yielding to pressure from the minority does not reflect the dynamics of the negotiations and will lead us nowhere.

Finally, in principle, we can support the efficient and effective provision of resources from the UN system to the IGN process. However, we can only truly accept this, if we also pledge to fundamentally improve the manner in which negotiations are conducted within the IGN process. In this regard, it is essential to incorporate in the Pact text clear and concrete objectives and timelines that reflect a shared sense of urgency.

With regard to Action 3, we commend the Co-Chairs for their efforts in finding compromise language that ambitiously points the organization in the right direction, while acknowledging that these actions are no substitute for comprehensive reform.

We agree on the need to reinforce the Council's capacity to take decisive and swift action in situations involving mass atrocities.

It is also clear that increasing collaboration and communication between UN principal organs is of paramount importance. We, therefore, support an enhanced relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, in particular, in accordance with the UN Charter.

Finally, enhancing the engagement of General Assembly members in the activities of the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies is advantageous. We remain receptive to exploring pragmatic and

feasible methods to further promote such involvement.

All in all, despite supporting Action 3, we can honestly say that we are disappointed that the ambition left in this text is leaning toward the very action that is not a substitute for Security Council reform.

We strongly encourage the Co-Chairs to include in the text references to timeframes and process changes that could at least get the negotiations on track, without prejudging any outcome of reform. Failure to do so will further damage the IGN process and this organization as a whole. As it stands, this text only benefits those who are seeking to maintain the current status quo.

Thank you.